RE: EU floats draft proposal in synthetic fuel tussle

[nismo48]

Arsecati said:

To look at it another way:

As I write this, I am sitting on a balcony overlooking the Aegean in Turkey and one thing I am absolutely sure of from my wanderings around the streets here - there will be no dumping of ICE cars here ANY time soon. Last month I was in Sharm, Egypt........ not a hope in hell are EV's going to be clogging up the roads there any time soon either. Last year, I was in Morocco....... ICE, ICE baby, and in the Summer of 21, I was in all 7 countries of the former Yugoslavia, plus Hungary and Albania (yep, in a 'covid' year), and if you mention Tesla over there - they'll just point you in the direction of his museum in Belgrade.

Granted, you were tripping over EV's in Helsinki when I was there in August (and those f*****g electric scooters scattered all over the place too), but take the ferry over to Tallinn, in Estonia......... not a single plug socket to be seen anywhere. As far as other EU countries I've hit in the last year or so? Well, Athens and the island of Rhodes in Greece, mainland Spain and The Canaries are in absolutely no rush either from what I could see.

So after all that drivel, I'm pretty sure that with all these whisperings of peddling back within the dark corridors of the EU (with still 12 years to go), means in my mind, there's a fair bit of peddling back to go yet, because bugger all people are anywhere damn ready for it.

I'm assuming everyone has also heard of Asia, Africa and South America - homes to some of the fastest growing car markets on the planet? Yeah, you can be pretty sure there won't be many Semi-D's there getting chargepoints fitted any year soon, so pretty safe to say that when the world has FINALLY given up on the good aul Internal Combustion Engine and thrown everything in to the basket of EV's......... we'll all be long dead, so who gives a s****!!

Peace and love, peace and love.

Very good

[GT9]

JJJ. said:

GT9 said:

JJJ. said:

GT9 said:

It was however you who opened up the question of wind power energy cost differentials between Chile and the UK.

Did I really? Honestly, I haven't got any idea on Chile vs UK on wind cost. Who the fk has off the top of their head?
Jesus, may be I'm far smarter than I think.
Don't let me down now, show me where exactly I questioned the difference between Chile and the UK. Or for that matter made any reference to wind costs.
I'll be pleased if you can do, I might even feel a bit smug about it.

Edited by JJJ. on Thursday 23 March 17:59

An hour or so ago Otolith posted that e-fuel costs will be linked to the cost of electricity, and because it uses several times as much electricity (per vehicle mile) then it will cost several times more than using that electricity directly.

You then responded to that by saying that because the e-fuel is being produced in Chile where wind conditions are favourable, why would that relationship apply.

Yes, I asked a question. Nothing , absolutely nothing to connect my question with what you stated I said. Come on get grip.

You opened your posting on this thread to say that you don't think electricity, however generated, will get cheaper, and it would therefore be good to have more options.

Another poster and I have pointed out that e-fuel is produced from electricity, hence the name....

It has also been pointed out it uses quite a lot of electricity, which means e-fuel cost will be linked to electricity cost.

You then brought up wind turbines in Chile as to why that might not apply, and also decided there is something wrong with me and that I need to get a grip.

Wind turbines generate electricity the last time I checked.

I am at a loss now to understand what you were trying to say, but I expect you will throw another insult my way, and I'll leave you to have the last word, otherwise this will never end.

[Fastlane]

Arsecati said:

Right, so EVERYTHING I said about 'sound' just went clean over your head then? And I can't afford a Rimac or Bugatti now, pretty sure I'm not going to afford one in 12 years either (if I actually wanted one - which I don't!).

I was ASSUMING that you were referring to cars made up to 2035 (although I doubt there will be many more great sounding engines built much after 2030).

In my dotage I find a fast EV far more discreet than a great sounding flat six or V8. To the majority of people owners of loud cars are seen as unsociable knobs.

Edited by Fastlane on Thursday 23 March 20:20

[donkmeister]

Arsecati said:

Olivergt said:

Maybe they could add a dye to real petrol, like they do for Diesel?

If your car is newer than 2035, then no dye allowed when dipped.

If you are running an older car, then, firstly you won't get tested anyway, but if you were tested, dye would be allowed to be present.

Why is it the simplest suggestions are usually the best? I'd love to stick red diesel (or green, as I'm in Ireland!) in to my 3 litre diesel Audi....... but I also love the idea of not getting the car siezed and hit with a massive fine from falling foul of the aul excise boys and girls! Very good suggestion there my man..... even more reason to hope!

A red diesel like marker was my first thought. Even better if they put in something that the car will sense rather than relying on tank dipping.
You could even use multiple dye markers and integrate a spectrometer into the fuel system to check for multiple peaks, just to avoid someone immobilising their car by adding redex or something.

[Soupdragon65]

Carbon capture to trap industrial waste CO2 is a good idea.

Direct carbon capture from the atmosphere to lower (rather than not raise) CO2 levels is likewise a good idea provided it can be done using renewable energy and at acceptable environmental cost.

Carbon capture to make synthetic fuel which is then burned releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere only makes sense where there is no alternative.

Aviation - yes, shipping - probably, classic cars and race cars to keep middle aged men happy - not a chance!

[Arsecati]

Fastlane said:

I was ASSUMING that you were referring to cars made up to 2035 (although I doubt there will be many more great sounding engines built much after 2030).

In my dotage I find a fast EV far more discreet than a great sounding flat six or V8. To the majority of people owners of loud cars are seen as unsociable knobs.

Edited by Fastlane on Thursday 23 March 20:20

When I'm in one of my 'fun' vehicles, I stay as far away from the 'public' as possible...... usually driving where the only living creatures that can hear me have fur and hooves, and pretty much before anyone is awake anyway (except of course on a track day). In my own dotage, I simply could not give a monkeys uncle any more about the reg plate on my every day grunt vehicle, so not a hope in hell am I gonna blow £50-60k plus on an EV that is going to do NOTHING above and beyond what my old 235k mile 3 litre diesel Audi can do (and my 2 ancient GSD's have lived in it since they were puppies, and I'd love to hear alternate suggestions to the back of an A6 Avant, where in their teenage years, they are still just about able to jump in and out of!).

Every year we keep hearing about the noise of modern ICE engines being strangled by emissions and regulations, but every year - manufacturers are still producing engines with sounds that will stand the hairs on the back of your necks up. In that respect, I'd be MORE than happy with a hybrid/phev supercar, so as to leave it in EV mode until you're out of earshot of the neighbours, but whereas I'm absolutely in favour of silence in the community....... c'mon man..... you can't have lost your soul completely, that you would substitute the wail of an F6/V8/etc., isolated on your favourite mountain road, over the silent whine of an electric motor?

[Arsecati]

And well bugger me....... look just what popped up on one of my other favourite motoring websites!!

Oh sweet jesus of the mary chain, am I so damn glad to also be a biker!!!! (Don't worry boys..... us Ducati lads are busy doing the research for the rest of ya!!!).

https://www.visordown.com/news/racing/motogp/ducat...

[rodericb]

Arsecati said:

And well bugger me....... look just what popped up on one of my other favourite motoring websites!!

Oh sweet jesus of the mary chain, am I so damn glad to also be a biker!!!! (Don't worry boys..... us Ducati lads are busy doing the research for the rest of ya!!!).

https://www.visordown.com/news/racing/motogp/ducat...

Interestingly they used to use a very exotic blend of stuff years ago but switched to (I believe) a much more run-of-the-mill unleaded. Oh how the world turns...

[dvs_dave]

Soupdragon65 said:

Carbon capture to trap industrial waste CO2 is a good idea.

Direct carbon capture from the atmosphere to lower (rather than not raise) CO2 levels is likewise a good idea provided it can be done using renewable energy and at acceptable environmental cost.

Carbon capture to make synthetic fuel which is then burned releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere only makes sense where there is no alternative.

Aviation - yes, shipping - probably, classic cars and race cars to keep middle aged men happy - not a chance!

If atmospheric carbon capture was feasible on any sort of scale (as would be needed for eFuels), then why bother with the whole net zero thing and all that it entails?

Why not just suck all that supposedly climate change inducing excess CO2 out of the atmosphere, sequester the Carbon, and be done with it? Such a thing would be a massively profitable carbon negative, trillions in carbon credit printing industry that shortcuts the whole carbon neutral end game in one fell swoop, whilst creating riches for beyond the owners wildest dreams.

Gotta wonder why such a perfect dream isn’t already a reality.

Edited by dvs_dave on Thursday 23 March 23:12

[pacdes]

rb26 said:

Nice to see politicians continue their proud tradition of being so utterly disconnected from the realities of the real world. Happily staying in their little bubble of ignorance.

Well said.

[otolith]

Soupdragon65 said:

Carbon capture to trap industrial waste CO2 is a good idea.

Direct carbon capture from the atmosphere to lower (rather than not raise) CO2 levels is likewise a good idea provided it can be done using renewable energy and at acceptable environmental cost.

Carbon capture to make synthetic fuel which is then burned releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere only makes sense where there is no alternative.

Aviation - yes, shipping - probably, classic cars and race cars to keep middle aged men happy - not a chance!

I think that broadly use of synthetic fuels will be driven by rationally. I do expect that eventually wealthy middle aged men will be able to secure some for their hobbies. I suspect that the availability will be closer to how one currently buys race fuel, or nitromethane, than how one buys 95RON.

[Soupdragon65]

otolith said:

Soupdragon65 said:

Carbon capture to trap industrial waste CO2 is a good idea.

Direct carbon capture from the atmosphere to lower (rather than not raise) CO2 levels is likewise a good idea provided it can be done using renewable energy and at acceptable environmental cost.

Carbon capture to make synthetic fuel which is then burned releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere only makes sense where there is no alternative.

Aviation - yes, shipping - probably, classic cars and race cars to keep middle aged men happy - not a chance!

I think that broadly use of synthetic fuels will be driven by rationally. I do expect that eventually wealthy middle aged men will be able to secure some for their hobbies. I suspect that the availability will be closer to how one currently buys race fuel, or nitromethane, than how one buys 95RON.

The issue is the EUs insistance that new cars must only be able to run on efuels.

Who is going to install a pump at petrol stations to be used by a tiny minority of consumers? Everyone else will be running their legacy fleets out on existing fuel and keep efuel for aviation. Unless you can store a tank at home (like heating oil but with much bigger health and safety concerns) how would it work? The market will keep alive only those cars that people feel are with saving (as it dies now) but over time those will become harder to run as petrol stations close. By 2050 how many will still be open?

Motorsport might be able to continue using it but it’s hard to see how the logistics could work for retail use.

[NDNDNDND]

Soupdragon65 said:

Carbon capture to trap industrial waste CO2 is a good idea.

Carbon capture to make synthetic fuel which is then burned releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere only makes sense where there is no alternative.

I'm not sure you understand what you're arguing against. Burning synthetic fuels makes perfect sense in use cases where it has less carbon impact than a battery, such as low-use vehicles such as classics or racing cars. In extreme, admittedly idealistic, cases the lower embodied carbon of an ICE vehicle combined with a renewable fuel could have a lower life time CO2 output than a BEV in all use cases.

Soupdragon65 said:

Aviation - yes, shipping - probably, classic cars and race cars to keep middle aged men happy - not a chance!

I presume you're saying this because you're jealous of people who are more successful than you and can have nice things?

dvs_dave said:

f atmospheric carbon capture was feasible on any sort of scale (as would be needed for eFuels), then why bother with the whole net zero thing and all that it entails?

Why not just suck all that supposedly climate change inducing excess CO2 out of the atmosphere, sequester the Carbon, and be done with it? Such a thing would be a massively profitable carbon negative, trillions in carbon credit printing industry that shortcuts the whole carbon neutral end game in one fell swoop, whilst creating riches for beyond the owners wildest dreams.

Gotta wonder why such a perfect dream isn’t already a reality.

It's my understanding that the factor is that carbon credits don't currently cover the cost of extraction. Maybe e-fuels will generate a viable business model to make the process more profitable.

Gosh, imagine if part of the requirement for making e-fuels was to sequester more CO2 than was invested in making the fuel - carbon negative transport, anyone?

[Olibol]

My guess is that they will go with something like this to break the impasse but that when the time comes there will only be half a dozen extremely expensive and specialist cars that take advantage of it. It’s an expensive and inefficient blind alley, but if it shuts up the fuel lobby, so be it.

[Soupdragon65]

otolith said:

I think that broadly use of synthetic fuels will be driven by rationally. I do expect that eventually wealthy middle aged men will be able to secure some for their hobbies. I suspect that the availability will be closer to how one currently buys race fuel, or nitromethane, than how one buys 95RON.

But surely it would make more sense to prioritise the use of synthetic fuels by aviation etc and continue to supply the ever dwindling stock of race cars and classic ice cars from regular fossil fuel? Economies of scale.

What synthetic fuels can’t do IMO is provide any justification for continuing to produce such cars beyond 2035.

You might see them being allowed on track where their use could be regulated, but the justification, market and practicalities for producing and running a new synthetic fuel only car beyond 2035 make it unlikely in the extreme.

Once again if new ICE cars beyond 2035 can only run in synthetic fuel but the millions of existing cars can continue to use readily available and cheaper fossil fuel, where on earth are you going to buy said synthetic fuel?


There’s obviously the 1000 model niche exemption (for now) but that’s not

[86wasagoodyear]

Arsecati said:

To look at it another way:

As I write this, I am sitting on a balcony overlooking the Aegean in Turkey and one thing I am absolutely sure of from my wanderings around the streets here - there will be no dumping of ICE cars here ANY time soon. Last month I was in Sharm, Egypt........ not a hope in hell are EV's going to be clogging up the roads there any time soon either. Last year, I was in Morocco....... ICE, ICE baby, and in the Summer of 21, I was in all 7 countries of the former Yugoslavia, plus Hungary and Albania (yep, in a 'covid' year), and if you mention Tesla over there - they'll just point you in the direction of his museum in Belgrade.

Granted, you were tripping over EV's in Helsinki when I was there in August (and those f*****g electric scooters scattered all over the place too), but take the ferry over to Tallinn, in Estonia......... not a single plug socket to be seen anywhere. As far as other EU countries I've hit in the last year or so? Well, Athens and the island of Rhodes in Greece, mainland Spain and The Canaries are in absolutely no rush either from what I could see.

So after all that drivel, I'm pretty sure that with all these whisperings of peddling back within the dark corridors of the EU (with still 12 years to go), means in my mind, there's a fair bit of peddling back to go yet, because bugger all people are anywhere damn ready for it.

I'm assuming everyone has also heard of Asia, Africa and South America - homes to some of the fastest growing car markets on the planet? Yeah, you can be pretty sure there won't be many Semi-D's there getting chargepoints fitted any year soon, so pretty safe to say that when the world has FINALLY given up on the good aul Internal Combustion Engine and thrown everything in to the basket of EV's......... we'll all be long dead, so who gives a s****!!

Peace and love, peace and love.

You are so right. And far more grounded in the realities of the world than the European Commission. Billions of people the world over are going to need to continue with dinosaur juice for many many decades to come. Forcing EVs to replace the ICE stock in 'rich' countries is simply going to end up dragging millions of people in these 'rich' countries down to the more impoverished level of people in currently 'less-rich' countries. All the while, digging up half of Africa for the raw materials & leaving acid lakes behind from the ore processing. But that's all OK because those things aren't happening just outside Brussels or Strasbourg.

They should be regulating the industry down the route of minimum use of raw materials, with a mixture of all power sources being allowed. Want a pure EV ? Fine. A modern super clean ICE ? By all means. Hybrid ? Yes Sir.

Legislation should be requiring low mass, restricted power, super aerodynamics, small size, narrow tyres etc. Much less of everything should be used - for both building and running the vehicles. The last 10 years or so of 2000kg SUV Power Wars is what really needs to be stopped - and reversed.

Bring on things like the VW XL1, and cheaper metal-bodied 4 & 5 seat equivalents. And get many more people on smaller cheaper vehicles like scooters, mopeds, motorbikes etc. My 300cc motorbike does 2.7 L/100km. Far more efficient for a single person trip than any current car. With the bonus that it's fun.

[Dave Hedgehog]

nice to see the politicians foil this back door attempt at keeping fossil fuels by the auto and oil industries

excellent work

[otolith]

Soupdragon65 said:

otolith said:

I think that broadly use of synthetic fuels will be driven by rationally. I do expect that eventually wealthy middle aged men will be able to secure some for their hobbies. I suspect that the availability will be closer to how one currently buys race fuel, or nitromethane, than how one buys 95RON.

But surely it would make more sense to prioritise the use of synthetic fuels by aviation etc and continue to supply the ever dwindling stock of race cars and classic ice cars from regular fossil fuel? Economies of scale.

What synthetic fuels can’t do IMO is provide any justification for continuing to produce such cars beyond 2035.

You might see them being allowed on track where their use could be regulated, but the justification, market and practicalities for producing and running a new synthetic fuel only car beyond 2035 make it unlikely in the extreme.

Once again if new ICE cars beyond 2035 can only run in synthetic fuel but the millions of existing cars can continue to use readily available and cheaper fossil fuel, where on earth are you going to buy said synthetic fuel?


There’s obviously the 1000 model niche exemption (for now) but that’s not

I don't see any future mass market for synthetically fuelled ICEs, just a dwindling legacy fleet which will continue to run on fossil fuels until that market becomes uneconomical. Beyond that point, when the only way to get fuel is to have it delivered in a barrel or dispensed at a track, it will only be hobbyists buying it, and it may be synthetic and it will be expensive.

[GT9]

86wasagoodyear said:

They should be regulating the industry down the route of minimum use of raw materials, with a mixture of all power sources being allowed.

This is a very accurate statement, but what we need to recognise, in my opinion, is that it has already, by and large, been done.

Unfortunately, when you do a lifetime audit of raw materials and energy balance, including the usage phase, the ICE is left wanting and pure EV is left as the last man standing. Hydrogen fuel cell, hydrogen ICE, and hybrid ICE all fall at fairly early hurdles.

A 1.5 ton ICE will consume something like 20 or 30 tons of fuel over its life, so at a planetary level, arguing the toss over an extra 400 of 500 kg of vehicle kerb mass is far less impactful than the average car owner sees it.

The ability to distribute fuel usage over a multi-decade timeline is obviously very attractive to the car user, both from an upfront cost perspective but also because it makes the car lighter.

Conversely, the effect on the environment is much more about how much lifetime CO2 is produced and how much energy flows throughout the life of car in each car's loop.

It's obviously fair to say that a 400-500 kg battery has a significant environmental footprint, and because that occurs at the front end of the car's lifetime, it is undesirable to the user, and has been heavily scrutinised by all corners.

Hundreds of studies have therefore been undertaken to try to quantify environmental impact of the battery approach. With the passage of time, these are painting a better and better picture, mainly due to improvements in manufacturing methods and capability combined with the positive impact of renewably-sourced electricity for BOTH production and usage phase.

It is therefore possible to forecast a trajectory with a reasonable degree of accuracy of where we would end up if x, y, and z things happen over that trajectory and timeline. These trajectories can of course be location specific, so it is important to look at what works best and where. And it's a lot more about the long game than trying to measure breakeven in the car's first term of ownership. It's also about the second, third and fourth generation of cars, when things like recycling and near 100% renewables becoming more and more relevant.

Call it a 50 year project if you like.

For the UK, the EV trajectory looks as good as it does just about anywhere in the world, so there is actually method in the perceived madness of attempting 100% EV adoption for the passenger car sector in the UK. We are of course unlikely to get to 100%, but I'd suggest we are going to have pretty good go at it.

Contrary to popular opinion, the decisions taken at government level regarding the passenger car sector have actually be done with entirely credible and accurate information to hand for what our trajectory might look like. If you are on the receiving end of this process and haven't taken (or got) the time to access the information, dissect it and process it, it's understandable that it might look like crazy stuff.

Regarding the point about kerb mass...you have also accurately pointed to the way forward, which is aerodynamics.

The starting point for reducing the mass of an EV is the aero, as it has the largest single impact on battery size, not the kerb mass itself. Unless you attack aero, you simply will not be able to make the cars that much lighter.

That means finding ways to reduce frontal area and living with 'peculiar' styling to make the car more slippery. Reduce the energy lost to punching the car through the air, and you can start to make the battery smaller (or alternatively offer longer range). A slipperier car means a smaller battery, means less mass and therefore less rolling resistance and less unrecovered kinetic energy. It also means that travelling at higher speeds is more acceptable from an energy consumption perspective due to the relationship between speed and aero.

The aero approach to reducing a vehicles impact only really works though if you haven't already wasted most of the energy upstream in electrolysers, synthesisers, compressors, carbon capture machines, engines, radiators, fuel cells, friction brakes and transmissions.

It also means a higher mileage per unit of electricity supplied during the usage phase. Which means we need fewer wind turbines, fewer charging points, fewer upgrades to the grid, and a lower running cost to the user.

Again, when you look at the long game, EVs are a unique opportunity with multiple benefits that in reality no other drivetrain technology can offer over that 50 year project timeline.

Edited by GT9 on Friday 24th March 12:40

[355spider]

I honestly can’t fathom which direction the wind blows with all this, and so I’ll resist passing water in the open for now.

But for those of us with ice cars which we intend to hang onto, what does the future look like post 2035 in terms of being able to actually use them?

Yes, I’m quite sure running my f355 will draw negative reactions to the majority of people , but will I actually be able to use it, will it even run on synthetic fuel? I’m not even supposed to put e10 in it let alone future mixes